Stephen Wertheim Profile picture
Oct 2, 2020 10 tweets 3 min read Read on X
As America's political divisions grow only more intense, it can seem tempting to rally around U.S. global leadership — or armed dominance — as one of few areas of unity we have left.

That temptation should be resisted. It is one reason our civic life has broken down.
America's militarized foreign policy has fueled its divisions at home. Not only have weapons of war poured into police departments and onto U.S. streets, but U.S. leaders have constantly presented much of humanity as mortal enemies who must be feared and vanquished.
Bush and Obama often said decent things about Islam, that America was at war with terrorists, not Muslims. But what spoke louder, both in the greater Middle East and in American society, was that the United States was waging war across the Muslim world, with no end in sight.
When the war went wrong, leaders of both parties failed to admit that America had acted too aggressively, that those on the receiving end understandably struck back. Instead, many Americans were left to blame the enemy for being too dangerous and their leaders for being too weak.
In a diverse society, the kinds of people America was killing abroad — whether construed as Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, brown, or colored — could also be found within the United States. The foreign enemy easily morphed into the enemy within.
So it did. Endless war come home on America's southern border, first through vigilante groups and then through the Trump movement, which jumbled Latin American immigrants and Middle Eastern terrorists into a single specter of non-white invasion.
This summer, endless war expanded its reach into the homeland. The president deployed military and paramilitary forces to U.S. streets and depicted an entire political party as the abettor of insurrectionist, terrorist violence.
This is a Trump problem, yes, but more profoundly it is an American problem. To my mind, a crucial moment came when the Obama administration killed Osama bin Laden and yet expanded U.S. warfighting across a greater arc of the earth.
The way forward is to reject the original premise of the war on terror as announced by George W. Bush: "Our strategy is this: we will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America."
My further thoughts here: newyorker.com/news/our-colum…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen Wertheim

Stephen Wertheim Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stephenwertheim

Apr 15
The main challenge for U.S. foreign policy today isn't Trump, and it isn't Biden. It is that the longstanding pursuit of global military dominance has run headlong into the problems of overcommitment, overstretch, and domestic discontent.
The United States is overcommitted because over eight decades, and especially after the Cold War, it has issued defense guarantees to dozens of countries, not of all which are truly essential to the security, prosperity, and freedom of the American people and the American polity.
The United States is overstretched because it no longer has the material resources to meet multiple plausible military contingencies at once, especially to wage wars against China and Russia simultaneously.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 6
Years in the making, my history of how the concepts of internationalism and isolationism came to be used in American politics, centering on the 1930s and 1940s, is finally out — just as commentators keep nonsensically warning that “isolationism” is somehow on the march.
Despite the ubiquity of the terms internationalism and isolationism in politics and scholarship alike, no one had comprehensively investigated how these categories came into being, and to what effect.
Here's what I found.

1. Internationalism, a nineteenth century term, long preceded the widespread usage of isolationism. Associated with peace and cooperation, it meant seeking to stay out of, or transform, the system of power politics and war centered in Europe. Image
Read 12 tweets
Jun 18, 2023
For decades, U.S. officials have widely recognized that enlarging NATO, especially to Ukraine, ran at least some risk of putting the United States on a collision course with Russia. Below are some quotations that I didn't have room to include in my piece. nytimes.com/2023/06/16/opi…
This should go without saying, but I share these quotations not to excuse Russia's inexcusable, aggressive invasion of Ukraine, or to treat NATO enlargement as the sole or main cause of anything, but to promote the clear-eyed understanding needed to make decisions going forward.
George Kennan, 1998: "'I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely . . . . Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are." nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opi…
Read 11 tweets
Jun 17, 2023
The argument of my piece is precisely that Russian imperialism was a major reason why Moscow opposed NATO expansion. Russian imperialism and NATO enlargement were mutually reinforcing factors — not the either/or that so many commentators today claim.
Thus I disagree with some former policymakers like Michael McFaul who claim that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has "nothing to do" with NATO. It's not either/or. Enlarging NATO threatened Moscow's claim to an imperial sphere of influence in Ukraine and beyond.
Enlarging NATO also threatened the longstanding Russian desire for a security buffer in Eastern Europe. This strategic rationale went hand in hand with an imperial one, and the two became intertwined.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 17, 2022
Every so often, it becomes fashionable for foreign policy experts to talk up the importance of getting America's own house in order. "We need to break down the silos between foreign policy and domestic policy," they say, no doubt sincerely.
But then reality sets in. As individuals who define themselves as foreign policy experts and work in institutions of foreign policy experts, they are not trained, socialized, or incentivized to act other than as foreign policy experts.
So they continue to do what they do — foreign policy — until the cycle repeats and the next bout of rhetorical silo-breaking begins.
Read 11 tweets
Aug 23, 2022
To Europeans now awake to the danger of Russian aggression, it may seem tempting to double-down on American leadership. From where I sit in Washington, they would be making a mistake to do so. A thread:
Despite the West’s strong support for Ukraine, robust trends are pushing the United States to reduce its commitment to European security just as Europe's security needs are on the rise. These factors do not depend on the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House.
1. The United States cannot fight two wars at once against China and Russia. The Pentagon already abandoned its two-war standard in 2018 precisely as it enshrined great-power competition as its primary focus, because the two-war standard was tenable only against small states.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(